Science and Engineering for Learning Robots

This is the text version of a talk I gave on March 12, 2021, at the Brown University Robotics Symposium. As always, all views are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.

I'm going to talk about why I believe end-to-end Machine Learning is the right approach for solving robotics problems, and invite the audience to think about a couple interesting open problems that I don't know how to solve yet.

I'm a research scientist at Robotics at Google. This is my first full-time job out of school, but I actually started my research career doing high school science fairs. I volunteered at UCSF doing wet lab experiments with telomeres, and it was a lot of pipetting and only a fraction of the time was spent thinking about hypotheses and analyzing results. I wanted to become a deep sea marine biologist when I was younger, but after pipetting several 96-well plates (and messing them up) I realized that software-defined research was faster to iterate on and freed me up to do more creative, scientific work.

I got interested in brain simulation and machine learning (thanks to Andrew Ng's Coursera Course) in 2012. I did volunteer research at a neuromorphic computing lab at Stanford and did some research at Brown on biological spiking neuron simulation in tadpoles. Neuromorphic hardware is the only plausible path to real-time, large-scale biophysical neuron simulation on a robot, but much like wet-lab research is rather slow to iterate on. It was also a struggle to learn even simple tasks, which made me pivot to artificial neural networks which were starting to work much better at a fraction of the computational cost. In 2015 I watched Sergey Levine's talk on Guided Policy Search and remember thinking to myself, "oh my God, this is what I want to work on".

The Deep Learning Revolution

We've seen a lot of progress in Machine Learning in the last decade, especially in end-to-end machine learning, also known as deep learning. Consider a task like audio transcription: classically, we would chop up the audio clip into short segments, detect phonemes, aggregate phonemes into words, words into sentences, and so on. Each of these stages is a separate software module with distinct inputs and outputs, and these modules might involve some degree of machine learning. The idea of deep learning is to fuse all these stages together into a single learning problem, where there are no distinct stages, just the end-to-end prediction task from raw data. With a lot of data and compute, such end-to-end systems vastly outperform the classical pipelined approach. We've seen similar breakthroughs in vision and natural language processing, to the extent that all state-of-the-art systems for these domains are pretty much deep learning models.

Robotics has for many decades operated under a modularized software pipeline, where first you estimate state, then plan, then perform control to realize your plan. The question our team at Google is interested in studying is whether the end-to-end advances we've seen in other domains holds for robotics as well.

Software 2.0

When it comes to thinking about the tradeoff between hand-coded, pipelined approaches versus end-to-end learning, I like Andrej Karpathy's abstraction of Software 1.0 vs Software 2.0: Software 1.0 is where a human explicitly writes down instructions for some information processing. Such instructions (e.g. in C++) are passed through a compiler that generates the low level instructions of what the computer actually executes. When building Software 2.0, you don't write the program - you give a set of inputs and outputs and it's the ML system's job to finds the best program that satisfies your input-output description. You can think of ML as a "higher order compiler that takes data and gives you programs".

The gradual or not-so-gradual subsumption of software 1.0 code into software 2.0 is inevitable - one might start by tuning some coefficients here and there, then you might optimize over one of several code branches to run, and before you know it, the system actually consists of an implicit search procedure over many possible sub-programs. The hypothesis is that as we increase availability of compute and data, we will be able to automatically do more and more search over programs to find the optimal routine. Of course, there is always a role for Software 1.0 - we need it for things like visualization and data management. All of these ideas are covered in Andrej's talks and blog posts, so I encourage you to check those out.

How Much Should We Learn in Robotics?

End-to-end learning has yet to outperform the classical control-theory approaches in some tasks, so within the robotics community there is still an ideological divide on how much learning should actually be done.

On one hand, you have classical robotics approaches, which breaks down the problem into three stages: perception, planning, and control. Perception is about determining the state of the world, planning is about high level decision making around those states, and control is about applying specific motor outputs so that you achieve what you want. Many of the ideas we explore in deep reinforcement learning today (meta-learning, imitation learning, etc.) have already been studied in classical robotics under different terminology (e.g. system identification). The key difference is that classical robotics deals with smaller state spaces, whereas end-to-end approaches fuse perception, planning, and control into a single function approximation problem. There's also a middle ground where one can attempt to use hand-coded constructs from classical robotics as a prior, and then use data to adapt the system to reality. According to Bayesian decision making theory, the stronger prior you have, the less data (evidence) you need to construct a strong posterior belief.

I happen to fall squarely on the far side of the spectrum - the end-to-end approach. I'll discuss why I believe strongly in these approaches.

Three reasons for end-to-end learning

First, it's worked for other domains, so why shouldn't it work for robotics? If there is something about robotics that makes this decidedly not the case, it would be super interesting to understand what makes robotics unique. As an existence proof, our lab and other labs have already built a few real-world systems that are capable of doing manipulation and navigation from end-to-end pixel-to-control. Shown on the left is our grasping system, Qt-Opt, which essentially performs grasping using only monocular RGB, the current arm pose, and end-to-end function approximation. It can grasp objects it's never seen before. We've also had success on door opening and manipulation from imitation learning.

Fused Perception-to-Action in Nature

Secondly, there are often many shortcuts one can take to solve specific tasks, without having to build a unified perception-planning-control stack that is general across all tasks. Work from Mandyam Srinivasan's lab has done cool experiments getting honeybees to fly and perch inside small holes, with a spiral pattern painted on the wall. They found that bees will de-accelerate as they approach the target by the simple heuristic of keeping the rate of image expansion (the spiral) constant. They found that if you artificially increase or decrease the rate of expansion by spinning the spiral clockwise or counterclockwise, the honeybee will predictably speed up or slow down. This is Nature's elegant solution to a control problem: visually-guided odometry is computationally cheaper and less error prone than having to detect where the target is in world frame, plan a trajectory, and so on. It may not be a general framework for planning and control, but it is sufficient for accomplishing what honeybees need to do.

Okay, maybe honeybees can use end-to-end approaches, but what about humans? Do we need a more general perception-planning-control framework for human problems? Maybe, but we also use many shortcuts for decision making. Take ball catching: we don't catch falling objects by solving ODEs or planning, we instead employ a gaze heuristic - as long as an object stays in the same point in your field of view, you will eventually intersect with the object's trajectory. Image taken from Henry Brighton's talk on Robust decision making in uncertain environments.

The Trouble With Defining Anything

Third, we tend to describe decision making processes with words. Words are pretty much all we have to communicate with one another, but they are inconsistent with how we actually make decisions. I like to describe this as an intelligence "iceberg"; the surface of the iceberg is how we think our brain ought to make decisions, but the vast majority of intelligent capability is submerged from view, inaccessible to our consciousness and incompressible into simple language like English. That is why we are capable of performing intelligent feats like perception and dextrous manipulation, but struggle to articulate how we actually perform them in short sentences. If it were easy to articulate in clear unambiguous language, we could just type up those words into a computer program and not have to use machine learning for anything. Words about intelligence are lossy compression, and a lossy representation of a program is not sufficient to implement the full thing.

Consider a simple task of identifying the object in the image on the left (a cow). A human might attempt to string some word-based reasoning together to justify why this is a cow: "you see the context (an open field), you see a nose, you see ears, and black-and-white spots, and maybe the most likely object that has all these parts is a cow".

This is a post-hoc justification, and not actually a full description of how our perception system registers whether something is a cow or not. If you take an actual system capable of recognizing cows with great accuracy (e.g a convnet) and inspect its salient neurons and channels that respond strongly to cows, you will find a strange looking feature map that is hard to put into words. We can't define anything in reality with human-readable words or code with the level of precision needed for interacting with reality, so we must use raw sensory data - grounded in reality - to figure out the decision-making capabilities we want.

Cooking is Not Software 1.0

Our obsession with focusing on the top half of the intelligence iceberg biases us towards the Software 1.0 way of programming, where we take a hard problem and attempt to describe it - using words - as the composition of smaller problems. There is also a tendency for programmers to think of general abstractions for their code, via ontologies that organize words with other words. Reality has many ways to defy your armchair view of what cows are and how robotic skills ought to be organized to accomplish tasks in an object-oriented manner.

Cooking is one of the holy grails of robotic tasks, because environments are open-ended and there is a lot of dextrous manipulation involved. Cooking analogies abound in programming tutorials - here is an example of making breakfast with asynchronous programming. It's tempting to think that you can build a cooking robot by simply breaking down the multi-stage cooking task into sub-tasks and individual primitive skills.

Sadly, even the most trivial of steps abounds with complexity. Consider the simple task of spreading jam on some toast.

The software 1.0 programmer approaches this problem by breaking down the task into smaller, reusable routines. Maybe you think to yourself, first I need a subroutine for holding the slice of toast in place with the robot fingers, then I need a subroutine to spread jam on the toast.

Spreading jam on toast entails three subroutines: a subroutine for scooping the jam with the knife, depositing the lump of jam on the toast, then spreading it evenly.

Here is where the best laid plans go awry. A lot of things can happen in reality at any stage that would prevent you from moving onto the next stage. What if the toaster wasn't plugged in and you're starting with untoasted bread? What if you get the jam on the knife but in the process break something on the robot and you aren't checking to make sure everything is fine before proceeding to the next subroutine? What if there isn't enough jam in the jar? What if you're on the last slice of bread in the loaf and the crust side is facing up?

The prospect of writing custom code to handle the ends of the bread loaf (literal edge cases) ought to give one pause as to whether this is approach is scalable to unstructured environments like kitchens - you end up with a million lines of code that essentially capture the state machine of reality. Reality is chaotic - even if you had a perfect perception system, simply managing reality at the planning level quickly becomes intractable. Learning based approaches give us hope of managing this complexity by accumulate all these edge cases in data, and let the end-to-end objective (getting some jam on the toast) and Software 2.0 compiler figure out how to handle all the edge cases. My belief in end-to-end learning is not because I think ML has unbounded capability, but rather that the alternative approach where we capture all of reality into a giant hand-coded state machine is utterly hopeless.

Here is a video where I am washing and cutting strawberries and putting them on some cheesecake. A roboticist that spends too much time in the lab and not the kitchen might prescribe a program that (1) "holds strawberry", (2) "cut strawberry", (3) "pick-and-place on cheesecake", but if you watch the video frame by frame, there are a lot of other manipulation tasks that happen in the meantime - opening and closing containers with one or two hands, pushing things out of the way, inspecting for quality. To use the Intelligence Iceberg analogy: the recipe and high level steps are the surface ice, but the submerged bulk are all the little micro-skills the hands need to do to open containers and adapt to reality. I believe the most dangerous conceit in robotics is to design elegant programming ontologies on a whiteboard, and ignore the subtleties of reality and what its data tells you.

There are a few links I want to share highlighting the complexity of reality. I enjoyed this recent article on Quanta Magazine about the trickiness of defining life. This is not merely a philosophical question; people at NASA are planning a Mars expedition to collect soil samples and answer whether life ever existed on Mars. This mission requires clarity on the definition of life. Just like it's hard to define intelligent capabilities in precise language, so it is to define life. These two words may as well be one and the same.

Klaus Greff's talk on What Are Objects? raises some interesting queestions about the fuzziness of word. Obviously we want our perception systems to recognize objects so that we may manipulate and plan around them. But as the talk points out, defining what is and is not an object can be quite tricky (is a hole an object? Is the frog prince defined by what he once was, or what he looks like now?).

I've also written a short story on the trickiness of defining even simple classes like "teacups".

I worked on a project with Coline Devin where we used data and Software 2.0 to learn a definition of objects without any human labels. We use a grasping system to pick up stuff and define objects as "that which is graspable". Suppose you have a bin of objects and pick one of them up. The object is now removed from the bin and maybe the other objects have shifted around the bin a little. You can also easily look at whatever is in your hand. We then design an embedding architecture and use the following assumption about reality to train it: the pre-grasp objects embedding - post-grasp objects embedding to be equal to the embedding of whatever you picked up. This allowed us to bootstrap a completely self-supervised instance grasping system from a grasping system without ever relying on labels. This is by no means a comprehensive definition of "object" (see Klaus's talk) but I think it's a pretty good one.

Science and Engineering of End-to-End ML

End-to-end learning is a wonderful principle for building robotic systems, but it is not without its practical challenges and execution risks. Deep neural nets are opaque black box function approximators, which makes debugging them at scale challenging. This requires discipline in both engineering and science, and often the roboticist needs to make a choice as to whether to solve an engineering problem or a scientific one.

This is what a standard workflow looks like for end-to-end robotics. You start by collecting some data, cleaning it, then designing the input and output specification. You fit a model to the data, validate it offline with some metrics like mean-squared error or accuracy, then deploy it in the real world and see if it continues to work as well on your validation sets. You might iterate on the model and validation via some kind of automated hyperparameter tuning.

Most ML PhDs spend all their time on the model training and validation stages of the pipeline. RL PhDs have a slightly different workflow, where they think a bit more about data collection via the exploration problem. But most RL research also happens in simulation, where there is no need to do data cleaning and the feature and label specification is provided to you via the benchmark's design.

While it's true that advancing learning methods is the primary point of ML, I think this behavior is the result of perverse academic incentives.

There is a viscious tendency for papers to put down old ideas and hype up new ones in the pursuit of "technical novelty". The absurdity of all this is that if we ever found that an existing algorithm works super well on harder and harder problems, it would have a hard time getting published on in academic conferences. Reviewers operate under the assumption that our ML algorithms are never good enough.

In contrast, production ML usually emphasizes everything else in the pipeline. Researchers on Tesla's Autopilot team have found that in general, 10x'ing your data on the same model architecture outperforms any incremental modeling improvement in the last few years. As Ilya Sutskever says, most incremental algorithm improvements are just data in disguise. Researchers at quantitative trading funds do not change models drastically: they spend their time finding novel data sources that add additional predictive signal. By focusing on large-scale problems, you get a sense of where the real bottlenecks are. You should only work on innovating new learning algorithms if you have reason to believe that that is what is holding your system back.

Here are some examples of real problems I've run into in building end-to-end ML systems. When you collect data on a robot, certain aspects of the code get baked into the data. For instance, the tuning of the IK solver or the acceleration limits on the joints. A few months later, the code on the robot controllers might have changed in subtle ways, like maybe the IK solver was swapped with a different solver. This happens a lot in a place like Google where multiple people work on a single codebase. But because assumptions of the v0 solver were baked into the training data, you now have a train-test mismatch and the ML policy no longer works as well.

Consider an imitation learning task where you collect some demonstrations, and then predict actions (labels) from states (features). An important unit test to perform before you even start training a model is to check whether a robot that replays the exact labels in order can actually solve the task (for an identical initialization as the training data). This check is important because the way you design your labels might make assumptions that don't necessarily hold at test-time.

I've found data management to be one of the most crucial aspects of debugging real world robotic systems. Recently I found a "data bug" where there was a demonstration of the robot doing nothing for 5 minutes straight - the operator probably left the recording running without realizing it. Even though the learning code was fine, noisy data like this can be catastrophic for learning performance.

As roboticists we all want to see in our lifetime robots doing holy grail tasks like tidying our homes and cooking in the kitchen. Our existing systems, whether you work on Software 1.0 or Software 2.0 approaches, are far away from that goal. Instead of spending our time researching how to re-solve a task a little bit better than an existing approach, we should be using our existing robotic capabilities to collect new data for tasks we can't solve yet.

There is a delicate balance in choosing between understanding ML algorithms better, versus pushing towards a longer term goal of qualitative leaps in robotic capability. I also acknowledge that the deep learning revolution for robotics needs to begin with solving the easier tasks and then eventually working its way up to the harder problems. One way to accomplish both good science and long term robotics is to understand how existing algorithms break down in the face of harder data and tougher generalization demands encountered in new tasks.

Interesting Problems

Hopefully I've convinced you that end-to-end learning is full of opportunities to really get robotics right, but also rife with practical challenges. I want to highlight two interesting problems that I think are deeply important to pushing this field forward, not just for robotics but for any large-scale ML system.

A typical ML research project starts from a fixed dataset. You code up and train a series of ML experiments, then you publish a paper once you're happy with one of the experiments. These codebases are not very large and don't get maintained beyond the duration of the project, so you can move quickly and scrappily with little to no version control or regression testing.

Consider how this would go for a "lifelong learning" system for robotics, where you are collecting data and never throwing it away. You start the project with some code that generates a dataset (Data v1). Then you train a model with some more code, which compiles a Software 2.0 program (ckpt.v1.a). Then you use that model to collect more data (Data v2), and concatenate your datasets together (Data v1 + Data v2) to then train another model, and use that to collect a third dataset (Data v3), and so on. All the while you might be publishing papers on the intermediate results.

The tricky thing here is that the behavior of Software 1.0 and Software 2.0 code is now baked into each round of data collection, and the Software 2.0 code has assumptions from all prior data and code baked into it. The dependency graph between past versions of code and your current system become quite complex to reason about.

This only gets trickier if you are running multiple experiments and generating multiple Software 2.0 binaries in parallel, and collecting with all of those.

Let's examine what code gets baked into a collected dataset. It is a combination of Software 1.0 code (IK solver, logging schema) and Software 2.0 code (a model checkpoint). The model checkpoint itself is the distillation of a ML experiment, which consists of more Software 1.0 code (Featurization, Training code) and Data, which in turn depends on its own Software 1.0 and 2.0 code, and so on.

Here's the open problem I'd like to pose to the audience: how can we verify correctness of lifelong learning systems (accumulating data, changing code), while ensuring experiments are reproducible and bug free? Version control software and continuous integration testing is indispensable for team collaboration on large codebases. What would the Git of Software 2.0 look like?

Here are a couple ideas on how to mitigate the difficulty of lifelong learning. The flywheel of an end-to-end learning system involves converting data to a model checkpoint, then a model checkpoint to predictions, and model predictions to a final real world evaluation number. That eval also gets converted into data. It's critical to test these four components separately to ensure there are no regressions - if one of these breaks, so does everything else.

Another strategy is to use Sim2Real, where you train everything in simulation and develop a lightweight fine-tuning procedure for transferring the system to reality. We rely on this technique heavily at Google and I've heard this is OpenAI's strategy as well. In simulation, you can transmute compute into data, so data is relatively cheap and you don't have to worry about handling old data. Every time you change your Software 1.0 code, you can just re-simulate everything from scratch and you don't have to deal with ever-increasing data heterogeneity. You might still have to manage some data dependencies for real world data, because typically sim2real methods require training a CycleGAN.

Compiling Software 2.0 Capable of Lifelong Learning

When people use the phrase "lifelong learning" there are really two definitions. One is about lifelong dataset accumulation, and concatenating prior datasets to train systems that do new capabilities. Here, we may re-compile the Software 2.0 over and over again.

A stronger version of "lifelong learning" is to attempt to train systems that learn on their own and never need to have their Software 2.0 re-compiled. You can think about this as a task that runs for a very long time.

Many of the robotic ML models we build in our lab have goldfish memories - they make all their decisions from a single instant in time. They are, by construction, incapable of remembering what the last action they took was or what happend 10 seconds ago. But there are plenty of tasks where it's useful to remember:

• An AI that can watch a movie (>170k images) and give you a summary of the plot.
• An AI that is conducting experimental research, and it needs to remember hundreds of prior experiments to build up its hypotheses and determine what to try next.
• An AI therapist that should remember the context of all your prior conversations (say, around 100k words).
• A robot that is is cooking and needs to leave something in the oven for several hours and then resume the recipe afterwards.

Memory and learning over long time periods requires some degree of selective memory and attention. We don't know how to select which moments in a sequence are important, so we must acquire that by compiling a Software 2.0 program. We can train a neural network to fit some task objective to the full "lifetime" of the model, and let the model figure out how it needs to selectively remember within that lifetime in order to solve the task.

However, this presents a big problem: in order to optimize this objective, you need to run forward predictions over every step in the lifetime. If you are using backpropagation to train your networks, then you also need to run a similar number of steps in reverse. If you have N data elements and the lifetime is T steps long, the computational cost of learning is between O(NT) and O(NT^2), depending on whether you use RNNs, Transformers, or something in between. Even though a selective attention mechanisms might be an efficient way to perform long-term memory and learning, the act of finding that program via Software 2.0 compilation is very expensive because we have to consider full sequences.

Train on Short Sequences and It Just Works

The optimistic take is that we can just train on shorter sequences, and it will just generalize to longer sequences at test time. Maybe you can train selective attention on short sequences, and then couple that with a high capacity external memory. Ideas from Neural Program Induction and Neural Turing Machines seem relevant here. Alternatively, you can use ideas from Q-learning to essentially do dynamic programming across time and avoid having to ingest the full sequence into memory (R2D2)

Hierarchical Computation

Another approach is to fuse multiple time steps into a single one, potentially repeating this trick over and over again until you have effectively O(log(T)) computation cost instead of O(T) cost. This can be done in both forward and backward passes - clockwork RNNs and Dilated Convolutions used in WaveNet are good examples of this. A variety of recent sub-quadratic attention improvements to Transformers (Block Sparse Transformers, Performers, Reformers, etc.) can be thought of as special cases of this as well.

Parallel Evolution

Maybe we do need to just bite the bullet and optimize over the full sequences, but use embarassingly parallel algorithms to ammortize the time complexity (by distributing it across space). Rather than serially running forward-backward on the same model over and over again, you could imagine testing multiple lifelong learning agents simultaneously and choosing the best-of-K agents after T time has elapsed.

If you're interested in these problems, here's some concrete advice for how to get started. Start by looking up the existing literature in the field, pick one of these papers, and see if you can re-implement it from scratch. This is a great way to learn and make sure you have the necessary coding chops to get ML systems working well. Then ask yourself, how well does the algorithm handle harder problems? At what point does it break down? Finally, rather than thinking about incremental improvements to existing algorithms and benchmarks, constantly be thinking of harder benchmarks and new capabilities.

Summary

• Three reasons why I believe in end-to-end ML for robotics: (1) it worked for other domains (2) fusing perception and control is a nice way to simplfiy decision making for many tasks (3) we can't define anything precisely so we need to rely on reality (via data) to tell us what to do.
• When it comes to improving our learning systems, think about the broader pipeline, not just the algorithmic and mathy learning part.
• Challenge: how do we do version control for Lifelong Learning systems?
• Challenge: how do we compile Software 2.0 that does Lifelong Learning? How can we optimize for long-term memory and learning without having to optimize over full lifetimes?

Don't Mess with Backprop: Doubts about Biologically Plausible Deep Learning

“Traducción a Español”

Biologically Plausible Deep Learning (BPDL) is an active research field at the intersection of Neuroscience and Machine Learning, studying how we can train deep neural networks with a "learning rule" that could conceivably be implemented in the brain.

The line of reasoning that typically motivates BPDL is as follows:

1. A Deep Neural Network (DNN) can learn to perform perception tasks that biological brains are capable of (such as detecting and recognizing objects).
2. If activation units and their weights are to DNNs as what neurons and synapses are to biological brains, then what is backprop (the primary method for training deep neural nets) analogous to?
3. If learning rules in brains are not implemented using backprop, then how are they implemented? How can we achieve similar performance to backprop-based update rules while still respecting biological constraints?

A nice overview of the ways in which backprop is not biologically plausible can be found here, along with various algorithms that propose fixes.

My somewhat contrarian opinion is that designing biologically plausible alternatives to backprop is the wrong question to be asking. The motivating premises of BPDL makes a faulty assumption: that layer activations are neurons and weights are synapses, and therefore learning-via-backprop must have a counterpart or alternative in biological learning.

Despite the name and their impressive capabilities on various tasks, DNNs actually have very little to do with biological neural networks. One of the great errors in the field of Machine Learning is that we ascribe too much biological  meaning to our statistical tools and optimal control algorithms. It leads to confusion from newcomers, who ascribe entirely different meaning to "learning", "evolutionary algorithms", and so on.

DNNs are a sequence of linear operations interspersed with nonlinear operations, applied sequentially to real-valued inputs - nothing more. They are optimized via gradient descent, and gradients are computed efficiently using a dynamic programming scheme known as backprop. Note that I didn't use the word "learning"!

Dynamic programming is the ninth wonder of the world1, and in my opinion one of the top three achievements of Computer Science. Backprop has linear time-complexity in network depth, which makes it extraordinarily hard to beat from a computational cost perspective. Many BPDL algorithms often don't do better than backprop, because they try to take an efficient optimization scheme and shoehorn in an update mechanism with additional constraints. 

If the goal is to build a biologically plausible learning mechanism, there's no reason that units in Deep Neural Networks should be one-to-one with biological neurons. Trying to emulate a DNN with models of biologically neurons feels backwards; like trying to emulate the Windows OS with a human brain. It's hard and a human brain can't simulate Windows well.

Instead, let's do the emulation the other way around: optimizing a function approximator to implement a biologically plausible learning rule. The recipe is straightforward:

1. Build a biological plausible model of a neural network with model neurons and synaptic connections. Neurons communicate with each other using spike trains, rate coding, or gradients, and respect whatever constraints you deem to be "sufficiently biologically plausible". It has parameters that need to be trained.
2. Use computer-aided search to design a biologically plausible learning rule for these model neurons. For instance, each neuron's feedforward behavior and local update rules can be modeled as a decision from an artificial neural network.
3. Update the function approximator so that the biological model produces the desired learning behavior. We could train the neural networks via backprop. 

The choice of function approximator we use to find our learning rule is irrelevant - what we care about at the end of the day is answering how a biological brain is able to learn hard tasks like perception, while respecting known constraints like the fact that biological neurons don't store all activations in memory or only employ local learning rules. We should leverage Deep Learning's ability to find good function approximators, and direct that towards finding a good biological learning rules.

The insight that we should (artificially) learn to (biologically) learn is not a new idea, but it is one that I think is not yet obvious to the neuroscience + AI community. Meta-Learning, or "Learning to Learn", is a field that has emerged in recent years, which formulates the act of acquiring a system capable of performing learning behavior (potentially superior to gradient descent). If meta-learning can find us more sample efficient or superior or robust learners, why can't it find us rules that respect biological learning constraints? Indeed, recent work [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] shows this to be the case. You can indeed use backprop to train a separate learning rule superior to naïve backprop.

I think the reason that many researchers have not really caught onto this idea (that we should emulate biologically plausible circuits with a meta-learning approach) is that until recently, compute power wasn't quite strong enough to both train a meta-learner and a learner. It still requires substantial computing power and research infrastructure to set up a meta-optimization scheme, but tools like JAX make it considerably easier now.

A true biology purist might argue that finding a learning rule using gradient descent and backprop is not an "evolutionarily plausible learning rule", because evolution clearly lacks the ability to perform dynamic programming or even gradient computation. But this can be amended by making the meta-learner evolutionarily plausible. For instance, the mechanism with which we select good function approximators does not need rely on backprop at all. Alternatively, we could formulate a meta-meta problem whereby the selection process itself obeys rules of evolutionary selection, but the selection process is found using, once again, backprop.

Don't mess with backprop!

Footnotes

[1] The eighth wonder being, of course, compound interest.

How to Understand ML Papers Quickly

My ML mentees often ask me some variant of the question "how do you choose which papers to read from the deluge of publications flooding Arxiv every day?” 

The nice thing about reading most ML papers is that you can cut through the jargon by asking just five simple questions. I try to answer these questions as quickly as I can when skimming papers.

1) What are the inputs to the function approximator?

E.g. a 224x224x3 RGB image with a single object roughly centered in the view. 

2) What are the outputs to the function approximator?

E.g. a 1000-long vector corresponding to the class of the input image.

Thinking about inputs and outputs to the system in a method-agnostic way lets you take a step back from the algorithmic jargon and consider whether other fields have developed methods that might work here using different terminology. I find this approach especially useful when reading Meta-Learning papers. 

By thinking about a ML problem first as a set of inputs and desired outputs, you can reason whether the input is even sufficient to predict the output. Without this exercise you might accidentally set up a ML problem where the output can't possibly be determined by the inputs. The result might be a ML system that performs predictions in a way that are problematic for society. 

3) What loss supervises the output predictions? What assumptions about the world does this particular objective make?

ML models are formed from combining biases and data. Sometimes the biases are strong, other times they are weak. To make a model generalize better, you need to add more biases or add more unbiased data. There is no free lunch. 

An example: many optimal control algorithms make the assumption of a stationary episodic data generation procedure which is a Markov-Decision Process (MDP). In an MDP, “state” and “action” deterministically map via the environment’s transition dynamics to “a next-state, reward, and whether the episode is over or not”. This structure, though very general, can be used to formulate a loss that allows learning Q values to follow the Bellman Equation.

4) Once trained, what is the model able to generalize to, in regards to input/output pairs it hasn’t seen before?

Due to the information captured in the data or the architecture of the model, the ML system may generalize fairly well to inputs it has never seen before. In recent years we are seeing more and more ambitious levels of generalization, so when reading papers I watch out to see any surprising generalization capabilities and where it comes from (data, bias, or both). 

There is a lot of noise in the field about better inductive biases, like causal reasoning or symbolic methods or object-centric representations. These are important tools for building robust and reliable ML systems and I get that the line separating structured data vs. model biases can be blurry. That being said, it baffles me how many researchers think that the way to move ML forward is to reduce the amount of learning and increase the amount of hard-coded behavior. 

We do ML precisely because there are things we don't know how to hard-code. As Machine Learning researchers, we should focus our work on making learning methods better, and leave the hard-coding and symbolic methods to the Machine Hard-Coding Researchers. 

5) Are the claims in the paper falsifiable? 

Papers that make claims that cannot be falsified are not within the realm of science. 

P.S. for additional hot takes and mentorship for aspiring ML researchers, sign up for my free office hours. I've been mentoring students over Google Video Chat most weekends for 7 months now and it's going great. 

My Criteria for Reviewing Papers

Xiaoyi Yin (尹肖贻) has kindly translated this post into Chinese (中文)

Accept-or-reject decisions for the NeurIPS 2020 conference are out, with 9454 submissions and 1900 accepted papers (20% acceptance rate). Congratulations to everyone (regardless of acceptance decision) for their hard work in doing good research!

It's common knowledge among machine learning (ML) researchers that acceptance decisions at NeurIPS and other conferences are something of a weighted dice roll. In this silly theatre we call "Academic Publishing"  -- a mostly disjoint concept from research by the way --,  reviews are all over the place because each reviewer favors different things in ML papers. Here are some criteria that a reviewer might care about: 

Correctness: This is the bare minimum for a scientific paper. Are the claims made in the paper scientifically correct? Did the authors take care not to train on the test set? If an algorithm was proposed, do the authors convincingly show that it works for the reasons they stated? 

New Information: Your paper has to contribute new knowledge to the field. This can take the form of a new algorithm, or new experimental data, or even just a different way of explaining an existing concept. Even survey papers should contain some nuggets of new information, such as a holistic view unifying several independent works.

Proper Citations: a related work section that articulates connections to prior work and why your work is novel. Some reviewers will reject papers that don't tithe prior work adequately, or isn't sufficiently distinguished from it.

SOTA results: It's common to see reviewers demand that papers (1) propose a new algorithm and (2)  achieve state-of-the-art (SOTA) on a benchmark. 

More than "Just SOTA": No reviewer will penalize you for achieving SOTA, but some expect more than just beating the benchmark, such as one or more of the criteria in this list. Some reviewers go as far as to bash the "SOTA-chasing" culture of the field, which they deem to be "not very creative" and "incremental". 

Simplicity: Many researchers profess to favor "simple ideas". However, the difference between "your simple idea" and "your trivial extension to someone else's simple idea" is not always so obvious.

Complexity: Some reviewers deem papers that don't present any new methods or fancy math proofs as "trivial" or "not rigorous".

Clarity & Understanding: Some reviewers care about the mechanistic details of proposed algorithms and furthering understanding of ML, not just achieving better results. This is closely related to "Correctness".

Is it "Exciting"?: Julian Togelius (AC for NeurIPS '20) mentions that many papers he chaired were simply not very exciting. Only Julian can know what he deems "exciting", but I suppose he means having "good taste" in choosing research problems and solutions. 

Sufficiently Hard Problems: Some reviewers reject papers for evaluating on datasets that are too simple, like MNIST. "Sufficiently hard" is a moving goal post, with the implicit expectation that as the field develops better methods the benchmarks have to get harder to push unsolved capabilities. Also, SOTA methods on simple benchmarks are not always SOTA on harder benchmarks that are closer to real world applications. Thankfully my most cited paper was written at a time where it was still acceptable to publish on MNIST.

Is it Surprising? Even if a paper demonstrates successful results, a reviewer might claim that they are unsurprising or "obvious". For example, papers applying standard object recognition techniques to a novel dataset might be argued to be "too easy and straightforward" given that the field expects supervised object recognition to be mostly solved (this is not really true, but the benchmarks don't reflect that). 

I really enjoy papers that defy intuitions, and I personally strive to write surprising papers. 

Some of my favorite papers in this category do not achieve SOTA or propose any new algorithms at all:

1. Approximating CNNs with Bag-of-local-Features models works surprisingly well on ImageNet
2. Understanding Deep Learning Requires Rethinking Generalization.
3. A Metric Learning Reality Check
4. Challenging Common Assumptions in the Unsupervised Learning of Disentangled Representations 
5. Adversarial Spheres

Is it Real? Closely related to "sufficiently hard problems". Some reviewers think that games are a good testbed to study RL, while others (typically from the classical robotics community) think that Mujoco Ant and a real robotic quadruped are entirely different problems; algorithmic comparisons on the former tell us nothing about the same set of experiments on the latter.

Does Your Work Align with Good AI Ethics? Some view the development of ML technology as a means to build a better society, and discourage papers that don't align with their AI ethics. The required "Broader Impact" statements in NeurIPS submissions this year are an indication that the field is taking this much more seriously. For example, if you submit a paper that attempts to infer criminality from only facial features or perform autonomous weapon targeting, I think it's likely your paper will be rejected regardless of what methods you develop.

Different reviewers will prioritize different aspects of the above, and many of these criteria are highly subjective (e.g. problem taste, ethics, simplicity). For each of the criteria above, it's possible to come up with counterexamples of highly-cited or impactful ML papers that don't meet that criteria but possibly meet others.

My Criteria

I wanted to share my criteria for how I review papers. When it comes to recommending accept/reject, I mostly care about Correctness and New Information. Even if I think your paper is boring and unlikely to be an actively researched topic in 10 years, I will vote to accept it as long as your paper helped me learn something new that I didn't think was already stated elsewhere. 

Some more specific examples:

• If you make a claim about humanlike exploration capabilities in RL in your introduction and then propose an algorithm to do something like that, I'd like to see substantial empirical justification that the algorithm is indeed similar to what humans do.
• If your algorithm doesn't achieve SOTA, that's fine with me. But I would like to see a careful analysis of why your algorithm doesn't achieve it and why.
• When papers propose new algorithms, I prefer to see that the algorithm is better than prior work. However, I will still vote to accept if the paper presents a factually correct analysis of why it doesn't do better than prior work. 
• If you claim that your new algorithm works better because of reason X, I would like to see experiments that show that it isn't because of alternate hypotheses X1, X2. 

Correctness is difficult to verify. Many metric learning papers were proposed in the last 5 years and accepted at prestigious conferences, only for Musgrave et al. '20 to point out that the experimental methodology between these papers were not consistent.

I should get off my high horse and say that I'm part of the circus too. I've reviewed papers for 10+ conferences and workshops and I can honestly say that I only understood 25% of papers from just reading them. An author puts in tens or hundreds of hours into designing and crafting a research paper and the experimental methodology, and I only put in a few hours in deciding whether it is "correct science". Rarely am I able to approach a paper with the level of mastery needed to rigorously evaluate correctness.

A good question to constantly ask yourself is: "what experiment would convince me that the author's explanations are correct and not due to some alternate hypothesis? Did the authors check that hypothesis?"

I believe that we should accept all "adequate" papers, and more subjective things like "taste" and "simplicity" should be reserved for paper awards, spotlights, and oral presentations. I don't know if everyone should adopt this criteria, but I think it's helpful to at least be transparent as a reviewer on how I make accept/reject decisions. 

Opportunities for Non-Traditional Researchers

If you're interested in getting mentorship for learning how to read, critique, and write papers better, I'd like to plug my weekly office hours, which I hold on Saturday mornings over Google Meet. I've been mentoring about 6 people regularly over the last 3 months and it's working out pretty well. 

Anyone who is not in a traditional research background (not currently in an ML PhD program) can reach out to me to book an appointment. You can think of this like visiting your TA's office hours for help with your research work. Here are some of the services I can offer, completely pro bono:

• If you have trouble understanding a paper I can try to read it with you and offer my thoughts on it as if I were reviewing it.
• If you're very very new to the field and don't even know where to begin I can offer some starting exercises like reading / summarizing papers, re-producing existing papers, and so on.
• I can try to help you develop a good taste of what kinds of problems to work on, how to de-risk ambitious ideas, and so on.
• Advice on software engineering aspects of research. I've been coding for over 10 years; I've picked up some opinions on how to get things done quickly.
• Asking questions about your work as if I was a visitor at your poster session.
• Helping you craft a compelling story for a paper you want to write.

No experience is required, all that you need to bring to the table is a desire to become better at doing research. The acceptance rate for my office hours is literally 100% so don't be shy!

Free Office Hours for Non-Traditional ML Researchers

Xiaoyi Yin (尹肖贻) has kindly translated this post into Chinese (中文)

This post was prompted by a tweet I saw from my colleague, Colin:

I'm currently a researcher at Google with a "non-traditional background", where non-traditional background means "someone who doesn't have a PhD". People usually get PhDs so they can get hired for jobs that require that credential. In the case of AI/ML, this might be to become a professor at a university, or land a research scientist position at a place like Google, or sometimes even both.

At Google it's possible to become a researcher without having a PhD, although it's not very easy. There are a two main paths [1]:

One path is to join an AI Residency Program, which are fixed-term jobs from non-university institution (FAANG companies, AI2, etc.) that aim to jump-start a research career in ML/AI. However, these residencies are usually just 1 year long and are not long enough to really "prove yourself" as a researcher.

Another path is to start as a software engineer (SWE) in an ML-focused team and build your colleagues' trust in your research abilities. This was the route I took: I joined Google in 2016 as a software engineer in the Google Brain Robotics team. Even though I was a SWE by title, it made sense to focus on the "most important problem", which was to think really hard about why the robots weren't doing what we wanted and train deep neural nets in an attempt to fix those problems. One research project led to another, and now I just do research + publications all the time.

As the ML/AI publishing field has grown exponentially in the last few years, it has gotten harder to break into research (see Colin's tweet). Top PhD programs like BAIR usually require students to have a publication at a top conference like ICML, ICLR, NeurIPS before they even apply. I'm pretty sure I would not have been accepted to any PhD programs if I were graduating from college today, and would have probably ended up taking a job offer in quantitative finance instead.

The uphill climb gets even steeper for aspiring researchers with non-traditional backgrounds; they are competing with no shortage of qualified PhD students. As Colin alludes to, it is also getting harder for internationals to work at American technology companies and learn from American schools, thanks to our administration's moronic leadership.

The supply-demand curves for ML/AI labor are getting quite distorted. On one hand, we have a tremendous global influx of people wanting to solve hard engineering problems and contribute to scientific knowledge and share it openly with the world. On the other hand, there seems to be a shortage of formal training:

1. A research mentor to learn the academic lingo and academic customs from, and more importantly, how to ask good questions and design experiments to answer them.
2. Company environments where software engineers are encouraged to take bold risks and lead their own research (and not just support researchers with infra).

Free Office Hours

I can't do much for (2) at the moment, but I can definitely help with (1). To that end, I'm offering free ML research mentorship to aspiring researchers from non-traditional backgrounds via email and video conferencing.

I'm most familiar with applied machine learning, robotics, and generative modeling, so I'm most qualified to offer technical advice in these areas. I have a bunch of tangential interests like quantitative finance, graphics, and neuroscience. Regardless of technical topic, I can help with academic writing and de-risking ambitious projects and choosing what problems to work on. I also want to broaden my horizons and learn more from you.

If you're interested in using this resource, send me an email at <myfirstname><mylastname><2004><at><g****.com>. In your email, include:

1. Your resume
2. What you want to get out of advising
3. A cool research idea you have in a couple sentences

Some more details on how these office hours will work:

1. Book weekly or bi-weekly Google Meet [2] calls to check up on your work and ask questions, with 15 minute time slots scheduled via Google Calendar.
2. The point of these office hours is not to answer "how do I get a job at Google Research", but to fulfill an advisor-like role in lieu of a PhD program. If you are farther along your research career we can discuss career paths and opportunities a little bit, but mostly I just want to help people with (1).
3. I'm probably not going to write code or run experiments for you.
4. I don't want to be that PI that slaps their name on all of their student's work - most advice I give will be given freely with no strings attached. If I make a significant contribution to your work or spend > O(10) hours working with you towards a publishable result, I may request being a co-author on a publication.
5. I reserve the right to decline meetings if I feel that it is not a productive use of my time or if other priorities take hold.
6. I cannot tell you about unpublished work that I'm working on at Google or any Google-confidential information.
7. I'm not offering ML consultation for businesses, so your research work has to be unrelated to your job.
8. To re-iterate point number 2 once more, I'm less interested in giving career advice and more interested in teaching you how to design experiments, how to cite and write papers, and communicating research effectively.

What do I get out of this? First, I get to expand my network. Second, I can only personally run so many experiments by myself so this would help me grow my own research career. Third, I think the supply of mentorship opportunities offered by academia is currently not scalable, and this is a bit of an experiment on my part to see if we can do better. I'd like to give aspiring researchers similar opportunities that I had 4 years ago that allowed me to break into the field.

Footnotes

[1] Chris Olah has a great essay on some additional options and pros and cons of non-traditional education.

[2] Zoom complies with Chinese censorship requests, so as a statement of protest I avoid using Zoom when possible.

Three Questions that Keep Me Up at Night

A Google interview candidate recently asked me: "What are three big science questions that keep you up at night?" This was a great question because one's answer reveals so much about one's intellectual interests - here are mine:

Q1: Can we imitate "thinking" from only observing behavior? 

Suppose you have a large fleet of autonomous vehicles with human operators driving them around diverse road conditions. We can observe the decisions made by the human, and attempt to use imitation learning algorithms to map robot observations to the steering decisions that the human would take.

However, we can't observe what the homunculus is thinking directly. Humans read road text and other signage to interpret what they should and should not do. Humans plan more carefully when doing tricky maneuvers (parallel parking). Humans feel rage and drowsiness and translate those feelings into behavior.

Let's suppose we have a large car fleet and our dataset is so massive and perpetually growing that we cannot train it faster than we are collecting new data. If we train a powerful black-box function approximator to learn the mapping from robot observation to human behavior [1], and we use active-learning techniques like DAgger to combat false negatives, will that be enough to acquire these latent information processing capabilities? Can the car learn to think like a human, and how much?

Inferring low-dimensional unobserved states from behavior is a well-studied technique in statistical modeling. In recent years, meta-reinforcement learning algorithms have increased the capability of agents to change their behavior in the presence of new information. However, no one has applied this principle to the scale and complexity of "human-level thinking and reasoning variables". If we use basic black-box function approximators (ConvNets, ResNets, Transformers, etc.), will it be enough? Or will it still fail even with a million lifetimes worth of driving data?

In other words, can simply predicting human behavior lead to a model that can learn to think like a human?



One cannot draw a hard line between "thinking" and "pattern matching", but loosely speaking I'd want to see such learned latent variables reflect basic deductive and inductive reasoning capabilities. For example, a logical proposition formulated as a steering problem: "Turn left if it is raining; right otherwise".

This could also be addressed via other high-data environments:

• Observing trader orders on markets and seeing if we can recover the trader's deductive reasoning and beliefs about the future. See if we can observe rational thought (if not rational behavior).
• Recovering intent and emotions and desire from social network activity.

Q2: What is the computationally cheapest "organic building block" of an Artificial Life simulation that could lead to human-level AGI?

Many AI researchers, myself included, believe that competitive survival of "living organisms" is the only true way to implement general intelligence.

If you lack some mental power like deductive reasoning, another agent might exploit the reality to its advantage to out-compete you for resources.

If you don't know how to grasp an object, you can't bring food to your mouth. Intelligence is not merely a byproduct of survival; I would even argue that it is Life and Death itself from which all semantic meaning we perceive in the world arises (the difference between a "stable grasp" and an "unstable grasp").

How does one realize an A-Life research agenda? It would be prohibitively expensive to implement large-scale evolution with real robots, because we don't know how to get robots to self-replicate as living organisms do. We could use synthetic biology technology, but we don't know how to write complex software for cells yet and even if we could, it would probably take billions of years for cells to evolve into big brains. A less messy compromise is to implement A-Life in silico and evolve thinking critters in there.

We'd want the simulation to be fast enough to simulate armies of critters. Warfare was a great driver of innovation. We also want the simulation to be rich and open-ended enough to allow for ecological niches and tradeoffs between mental and physical adaptations (a hand learning to grasp objects).

Therein lies the big question: if the goal is to replicate the billions of years of evolutionary progress leading up to where we are today, what are the basic pieces of the environment that would be just good enough?

• Chemistry? Cells? Ribosomes? I certainly hope not.
• How do nutrient cycles work? Resources need to be recycled from land to critters and back for there to be ecological change.
• Is the discovery of fire important for evolutionary progression of intelligence? If so, do we need to simulate heat?
• What about sound and acoustic waves?
• Is a rigid-body simulation of MuJoCo humanoids enough? Probably not, if articulated hands end up being crucial.
• Is Minecraft enough? 
• Does the mental substrate need to be embodied in the environment and subject to the physical laws of the reality? Our brains certainly are, but it would be bad if we had to simulate neural networks in MuJoCo.
• Is conservation of energy important? If we are not careful, it can be possible through evolution for agents to harvest free energy from their environment.

In the short story Crystal Nights by Greg Egan, simulated "Crabs" are built up of organic blocks that they steal from other Crabs. Crabs "reproduce" by assembling a new crab out of parts, like LEGO. But the short story left me wanting for more implementation details...




Q3: Loschmidt's Paradox and What Gives Rise to Time?

I recently read The Order of Time by Carlo Rovelli and being a complete Physics newbie, finished the book feeling more confused and mystified than when I had started.

The second law of thermodynamics, $\Delta{S} > 0$, states that entropy increases with time. That is the only physical law that is requires time "flow" forwards; all other physical laws have Time-Symmetry: they hold even if time was flowing backwards. In other words, T-Symmetry in a physical system implies conservation of entropy.

Microscopic phenomena (laws of mechanics on position, acceleration, force, electric field, Maxwell's equations) exhibit T-Symmetry. Macroscopic phenomena (gases dispersing in a room, people going about their lives), on the other hand, are T-Asymmetric. It is perhaps an adaptation to macroscopic reality being T-Asymmetric that our conscious experience itself has evolved to become aware of time passing. Perhaps bacteria do not need to know about time...

But if macroscopic phenomena are comprised of nothing more than countless microscopic phenomena, where the heck does entropy really come from?

Upon further Googling, I learned that this question is known as Loschmidt's Paradox. One resolution that I'm partially satisfied with is to consider that if we take all microscopic collisions to be driven by QM, then there really is no such thing as "T-symmetric" interactions, and thus microscopic interactions are actually T-asymmetric. A lot of the math becomes simpler to analyze if we consider a single pair of particles obeying randomized dynamics (whereas in Statistical Mechanics we are only allowed to assume that about a population of particles).

Even if we accept that macroscopic time originates from a microscopic equivalent of entropy, this still begs the question of what the origin of microscopic entropy (time) is.

Unfortunately, many words in English do not help to divorce my subjective, casual understanding of time from a more precise, formal understanding. Whenever I think of microscopic phenomena somehow "causing" macroscopic phenomena or the cause of time (entropy) "increasing", my head gets thrown for a loop. So much T-asymmetry is baked into our language!

I'd love to know of resources to gain a complete understanding of what we know and don't know, and perhaps a new language to think about Causality from a physics perspective

If you have thoughts on these questions, or want to share your own big science questions that keep you up at night, let me know in the comments or on Twitter! #3sciencequestions

Selected Quotes from "The Dark Ages of AI Panel Discussion"

In 1984, a panel at the AAAI conference discussed whether the field was approaching an "AI Winter". Mitch Waldrop wrote a transcript of the discussion, and much of it reads exactly like something written 35 years into the future.

Below are some quotes from the transcript that I found impressive, as they describe the feelings of many an AI researcher today and how the public views AI, despite all the advances in computing and software since 1984. 👇

"People make essentially no distinction between computers, broadly defined, and Artificial Intelligence... as far as they're concerned, there is no difference; they're just worried about the impact of very capable, smart computers" - Mitch Waldrop

"The computer is not only a mythic emblem for this bright, high-technology future, it's a mythic symbol for much of the anxiety that people have about their own society." - Mitch Waldrop

"A second anxiety, what you might call the 'Frankenstein Anxiety', is the fear of being replaced, of becoming superfluous..." - Mitch Waldrop

"Modern Times Anxiety: People becoming somehow, because of computers, just a cog in the vast, faceless machine; the strong sense of helplessness, that we really have no control over our lives" - Mitch Waldrop

"The problem is not a matter of imminent deadlines or lack of space or lack of time... the real problem is that what reporters see as real issues in the world are very different from what the AI community sees as real issues." - Mitch Waldrop

"If we expect physicists to be concerned about arms control and chemists to be concerned about toxic waste, it's probably reasonble to expect AI people to be concerned about the human impact of these technologies" - Mitch Waldrop

"It [Doomsday] is already here. There is no content in this conference" - Bob Wilensky

"What I heard was that only completed scientific work was going to be accepted. This is a horrible concept - no new unformed ideas, no incremental work building on previous work" - Roger Schank

"When I first got into this field twenty years ago, I used to explain to people what I did, and they would already say, 'you mean computers can't do that already?' They'll always believe that." - Roger Schank

"Big business has a very serious role in this country. Among other things, they get to determine what's 'in' and what's 'out' in the government." - Roger Schank

"I got scared when big business started getting into this - Schlumberger, Xerox, HP, Texas Instruments, GTE, Amico, Exxcon, they were all making investments - they all have AI groups. And you find out that, thoise people weren't trained in AI." - Roger Schank

"It's easier to go into a startup... [or] a big company... than to go into a university and try to organize an AI lab, which is just as hard to do now as it ever was. But if we don't do that, we will find that we are in the 'Dark Ages' of AI"  - Roger Schank

"The first [message] is incumbent upon AI because we have promised so much, to produce. We must produce working systems. Some of you must devote yourselves to doing that. It is also the case that some of you had better commit to doing science."  - Roger Schank

"If it turns out that our AI conference isn't the place to discuss science, then we better start finding a place where we can discuss science, because this show for all the venture capitalists is very nice."  - Roger Schank

"the notion of cognition as computation is going to have extraordinary importance to the philosophy and psychology of the next generation. And for well or ill, this notion has affected some of the deepest aspects of our self-image." - B. Chandrasekaran

"symbol-level theories, which may even be right, are being mistaken for knowledge-level theories"  - B. Chandrasekaran

"My hope is that AI will evolve more like biotech in the sense that certain technologies will be spun off, and researchers will remain and extremely interesting progress will be made"  - B. Chandrasekaran

"I have encountered people who have a science fiction view of the world and think that computers now can do just about anything... these people have a feeling that computers can do wonderful things, but if you ask them how exactly could an AI program help in work, they don't have the sense that within a week or two they could be replaced or that computers can come in and do a much better job than they do in work." - John McDermott

"There have been a number of technologies that have run into dead ends, like dirigibles and external combustion engines. And there have been other ones, like television, and in fact, the telephone system itself, which took between twenty and forty years to go from being laboratory possibilities to actual commercial successes. Do you really think that AI is going to become a commercial success in the next 10-15 years?" - Audience member

"They [lay people] seem to have a vague idea that great things can happen, have sublime confidence... but when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, they tend to be pretty unimaginative and have pretty low expectations as to what can be done." - Mitch Waldrop

"It seems that academic AI people tend to blame everyone but themselves when it comes to problems of AI in terms of relationship to the general society." - Audience member